• HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Good. They shouldn’t.

    Unencrypted channels are the ones that are easiest to trace, and the easiest ones to successfully base a prosecution on.

    The most correct response is to report them to law enforcement. Unencrypted channels make amazingly effective honeypots. It’s fairly easy to bust people using unencrypted channels, esp. because people think they’re anonymous and safe. It’s much, much harder to bust people once they move to .onion sites and the real dark net away from their phone. When you shut down all the easy channels, you push people into areas where it’s much harder, almost impossible, to root them out.

    • whereisk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      What if telegram refuses to cooperate with law enforcement in a timely fashion to provide details of the people sharing that material? What should law enforcement do then?

      • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        At that point they’re willingly hosting it for no reason other than to host it for their customers and they’re complicit, no?

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I think that holding the executives and BoD in criminal contempt of court is a good place to start.

        EDIT: AFAIK Telegram doesn’t use warrant canaries.